Below, we have provided two approaches to Baseline Analysis. The first approach is advanced and is more suited for individuals eager to dive deep and highly optimize the training plan by examining each cognitive metric and maintaining a smaller tolerance limit. Then, we have the simplified approach, which focuses on the big three metrics. If all three metrics either improve or worsen, we recommend the next steps. You may want to start with the simplified approach, and as you gain a deeper understanding of cognitive data, you can switch to the advanced approach. The choice is yours.

Grasping your athlete’s response to cognitive training is essential for fine-tuning performance enhancement strategies. Among the plethora of metrics, we emphasize the “Big Three”—reaction time, variation, and accuracy—as central to your decision-making process. Evaluating these metrics collectively rather than individually is crucial. Improvement in all three metrics indicates successful adaptation, while no improvement or deterioration suggests a need to reassess and adjust your approach, considering their interconnectedness.

An improvement exceeding 5% in reaction time, variation, and accuracy signifies successful adaptation to the current training stimulus. To further cognitive development:

If there’s no improvement or the changes are less than 5%, it indicates a plateau or minimal adaptation. In such cases:

Directly assessing the "Big Three" metrics is crucial for tailoring an athlete's cognitive training. Significant improvements suggest readiness for more challenging tasks or new demands. If not, the strategy needs tweaking. Decisions must hinge on these indicators to push or adapt an athlete's training effectively.

We suggest starting with the Big 3 and, as your skills improve, moving to advanced analysis. Analyzing data at the end of each training cycle can become overwhelming. Focusing on the Big 3—reaction time, variation, and accuracy—allows you to efficiently assess progress and make informed decisions for future training adaptations.

In advanced analysis, you need to analyze each cognitive task individually and consider each data point on its own rather than collectively like the simplified "Big 3" approach. This detailed method provides deeper insights into an athlete's progress.

Think of your athlete's performance as a triangle with three points: speed, accuracy, and variation. The goal is to increase response speed without sacrificing accuracy or variation. However, it’s a balancing act, as adjustments to speed often mean trade-offs with consistency.

We suggest a 3-5% tolerance limit with an athlete's data. For example, if an athlete's reaction time is 3% slower, this is acceptable as long as their variation and accuracy have improved. But an increase in reaction time over 5% is a sign that they are slowing down too much. If an athlete's variability increases by 7% and their reaction time improves markedly, it indicates quicker cognitive processing. However, an increase in variability over 7% suggests they are faster but inconsistent.

With ongoing training, a balance between speed, consistency, and accuracy is achievable. It's vital to set realistic goals for each training phase, accepting that data may have its imperfections. Therefore, we suggest a 3-5% tolerance. You may also want to start with a larger tolerance threshold and decrease it over time depending on your athlete's performance.

This advanced approach examines each metric individually. For instance, your athlete may be slower but exhibit lower variation and higher accuracy. While the simplified version signals a need to adjust the plan when all metrics improve, the advanced approach offers a more granular understanding. Even if reaction time is slower, improvements in consistency and accuracy are significant. This represents a more detailed method of analysis.

Aim for a tolerance limit of 5% to balance cognitive performance, speed, and consistency effectively.

Analyzing advanced metrics requires understanding how different changes in performance indicators interact. Here are several common patterns and recommended adjustments:

When an athlete’s reaction time remains unchanged but their consistency improves, it indicates a positive trend. Imagine a drum beating steadily instead of erratically. This improved consistency suggests the athlete is tightening their performance. In the next training phase, maintain this consistency while working on reducing reaction time. It’s essential to balance speed, accuracy, and consistency.

Improved reaction time with more erratic responses is a common pattern. This isn’t true improvement as faster but inconsistent responses are not desirable. Focus on enhancing consistency while maintaining improved reaction times. Consider shortening task durations or using Variable Performance Feedback (VPF) mode for real-time speed comparisons, helping athletes maintain consistent performance.

Slower reaction times with improved consistency indicate that the athlete is becoming more consistent. Think of a metronome ticking with a consistent rhythm. This isn’t a performance decline but rather an improvement in consistency. In the next training phase, maintain this newfound consistency while working to reduce reaction times. Athletes need to be fast, accurate, and consistent.

No change in reaction time or variation, but improved Heart Rate Variability (HRV), indicates better stress management by the nervous system. This is crucial for over-trained athletes. Focus on improving response consistency and reducing reaction times. With a better-equipped nervous system, continued training should lead to positive changes in cognitive performance.

Improved reaction time but decreased overall speed suggests outliers—extremely slow responses—dragging down the average speed. This highlights inconsistencies that reaction time alone might miss. These outliers could be due to distractions or lapses in concentration. Identifying and understanding these outliers is crucial to avoid being misled by seemingly better reaction times.

Slower reaction time and speed but improved variation indicate that the athlete is slower but more consistent. This is a positive development in addressing consistency issues. The next training step should focus on building speed while maintaining the new level of consistency. Athletes need to balance being fast, accurate, and consistent.

Each scenario demonstrates the importance of a comprehensive approach. Whether it’s maintaining consistency while working on speed or understanding the impact of outliers, deeper insights are crucial. These insights enable the creation of tailored training programs, ensuring athletes are not just fast, but also accurate and consistent.

Data tells a story. It’s neither good nor bad—it simply is. By understanding the full narrative, you can make informed decisions that truly enhance athletic performance. Embrace the depth of cognitive data and unlock the potential to push your athletes beyond their limits.

After analyzing the post-baseline data, it’s time to move forward with a new plan. If all cognitive demands have improved, that’s a great sign—just like in physical training, this means the athlete has adapted and their cognitive resilience has increased.

The next step is deciding where to go from here. If the focus remains the same, select new tasks, modes, and a suitable periodization model. If some areas still need improvement, prioritize those cognitive demands and adjust the training accordingly.

Adjustments to Consider:

As with physical training, set clear goals for each plan. If you’re addressing the same demands, use the adjustments mentioned above. For new demands, follow the same process to ensure continuous progress.